The problem I forsee is that UKIP will become a protest vote party for people who are not happy with the three main parties. This will only serve to enbolden Farage and his homphobes, as they will take this as a sign that they are making ground rather than being a protest vote.

Of course, they’re in no way homophobic – no. sirree. Just as they’re not racist either. Perish the thought! “There’s nothing wrong with foreigners – as long as there’s foreign countries for them to live in” (Else Garnett).

And just like the BNP, their support is based on the work of a single man. Farage seems to be the only person in the party who has recognised that they need to try and broaden their support beyond elderly xenophobic conspiracy theorists (I couldn’t help but cringe every time I heard Lord Pearson’s attempts at public speaking when he was briefly their leader, while Viscount Monckton frequently reaches David Icke levels of delusion), just as Griffin seems to be the only guy in the BNP who recognised that openly flaunting their anti-semitism and links to fascism was a little counter-productive. The parties don’t seem to allow anyone but those two near a TV studio, and presumably they will fall into crisis as soon as they retire or are ousted.

I am a former supporter of the BNP (I am still a nationalist though). The BNP and UKIP only share one thing in common ie we
would both wish Britain would leave the EU. After that, the differences mount up. Have you seen UKIP’s farcical tax policies for instance?
Under a UKIP government, the ultra-rich would be paying virtually no tax at all because of their flat tax policy and whilst the BNP wouldn’t want the very wealthy to pay 1970’s levels of taxes they do believe that there should be a significant progressive element to the tax system. Also, the BNP’s economic policies are more akin to Japan and South Korea’s model of nationalist economics than UKIP’s globalist economic liberalism. Basically, UKIP is Thatcherism on steroids.

Personally, I think the BNP should move towards UKIP with regard to its policies on gays. There is no real reason why the BNP shouldn’t accept civil partnerships.

Long before he was leader, Farage was the mouthpiece for the fledgling UKIP.
He was the one who had to issue a public apology for concealing the help UKIP had received from the BNP in establishing itself as a party. He had to publicly renounce the links with the BNP which continued for some years.
Private Eye later revealed that “defectors” (sleepers?) from the BNP had joined UKIP, and had rapidly been promoted to senior positions in the party.
At the risk of being accused of invoking Godwin’s law, the parallels with the German Worker’s Party, which was infiltrated in the 20’s and gradually became the National Socialist GWP, are disturbing…

I don’t see how it’s discrimination (parties frequently sack people for failing to toe the party line – like the Green councillor who opposed marriage equality), but I agree that the BBC is unlikely to devote much time to anything that shows homophobes in a negative light (compare their reporting on the social worker who felt that UKIP members should not foster Eastern European immigrants to their coverage of the UKIP spokesman saying that no same-gender couples should adopt or foster any children).

Interesting that UKIP sees no problem with overturning the expressed will of 67% of its ‘youth wing’…..Doubtless said ‘youth wing’ will now obediently support whomsoever Chair they have imposed on them….’youth’ are like that, after all…….A useful demonstration of how UKIP treat majority votes when they don’t agree with their official policies. No guessing what they’d do if the majority of the UK voted in favour of staying in the EU in case there is a referendum on the subject….

The real truth of UKIP is finally coming out, excuse the pun. I hope Farage is truly grilled to a crisp over these actions and recent outbursts in his next open interview. A dispicable man running a dispicable batch of right wing homophobes. I hope Olly Neville sees the light and switches his political faith to one more suited to his ambitions including same sex marriage.

They are strongly authoritarian xenophobes in favour of having a unified national culture, protectionism, and military mobilisation. That really isn’t a world away from Fascism – they would appear to support most of its tenets except for opposition to democracy and the general grandioseness of it. I don’t think there have been any genuine Fascist movements (at least ones with enough support to be taken seriously) for decades.

They are not in favour of protectionism. Quite the opposite in fact and that is why I as a nationalist can’t support them. There is
nothing wrong with protectionism provided it is limited in scope, carefully-directed and combined with other sensible policies. After all, it is part of the reason why Japan is an industrial superpower and we aren’t.

As I stated in a previous post, the UKIP would not be been created without the direct aid & support of the BNP. There is evidence, if Private Eye is to be believed (and they have a record of being right more often than wrong), there are ex-BNP members at senior levels in the Party.
Having studied the rise of Fascism in various countries, and in Germany in some depth, I am deeply concerned with the way UKIP is going. And in times of economic stress, people turn to parties that promise “tough action”, whether on Europe, immigrants, gay rights or, dare I say, Jews.

THIS ARTICLE IS INACCURATE. For a start, Ollie Neville was never chairman of UKIP’s Young Independence branch. He was using that label in the interim while Young Independence has not formulated any electoral procedure that satisfies the party. So he wasn’t “dismissed”, he was just told not to use a label he is not entitled to.
Secondly, it was mainly his views of open borders that attracted criticism from other members. Ollie was telling newspapers he disagreed with basic party policies, and policies without which there cannot even be a sovereign state i.e. border control.
Inevitably the press have seized on the emotive same-sex marriage issue, which they do not understand. They just want to stir up hysteria. Ollie is entitled to his private views, but not to make public attacks on party leaders. In some cases he made personal attacks on other UKIP members which was improper and offensive.

Do you have any evidence of any of this? I would look at the official UKIP web page for information about what has happened, but here is the entirety of their page about YI:

“UKIP’s social and political home for people under the age of 35.
Visit the web site at http://www.youngindependence.org. [broken link]
You can now download the latest Young Independence Newsletter from here. [broken link]
Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/ukip/_application/ukip/templates/default/section.tpl.php on line 24″

It’s almost like the party is embarrassed about this and desperately removing all information about the youth organisation from its website.

Having looked at the hysterical foul-mouthed, ignorant comments on your site and the level of aggression they express, I think that Julia Gasper was quite right. Your readers are mentally unstable, they are barmy and they do need to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

Some of the comments are over the top, but this is a reaction to the many extreme, ignorant, insulting anti-LGBT statements made by senior UKIP politicians. If you want to start sectioning people, you should begin with your former deputy leader Chris Monckton (does he still think he is a Nobel Laureate who discovered a cure for MS or has he got over that now?).

Wasn’t it the PM who called UKIP “crackpots”, “nutcases” or some similar word? If so, it’s the first time I have agreed with him.
UKIP want to restore the Fisheries free-for-all that led to depleted stocks in the first place, long before we joined the EEC.
They ignore the fact that oil-rich Norway, Switzerland and other nations have to obey the same rules we do if they want to trade with us, but unlike us, have no vote or say in the creation / amendment of those rules.
And they are silent about the fact that Iceland, once the most EU-phobic nation in Europe, came cap in hand begging for membership when their economy went belly-up.

Thanks for proving the UKIP are douchebags (not that any of us really needed it). You bloody shower are just the BNP for people who can pass a criminal background check and while you ride high on media spin and drivel you just fail more than a chocolate condom at the ballot box.

To the people who call this “discrimination” – how exactly would any political party exist if people who opposed its policies were allowed to become active members? You are not making any sense. Democracy demands that the voters are offered a choice, and to make that choice meaningful, there must be parties that stick to a given policy.
Stop raging about UKIP being undemocratic or “fascist” (ha ha) when you clearly know nothing at all about politics.

UKIP have been incredibly stupid. They had the golden opportunity to be the only real party where one could register an anti-Europe vote. Now they have declared themselves to be just another crazy flog-em-all gang. Nobody sane will vote for that.

Yes, in the past when they were (or appeared to be) a single-issue party as their name indicated, I was happy to vote for them, albeit only to fire a broadside across the Tories’ bows.

Not any more ! They are just the Neo-Nasty Party. They make Cameron and many of the Tories seem quite nice.

It’s a great shame that there’s no respectable way to vote in a General Election to show a wish to leave the European Union (sold to us nearly 40 years ago as just a Common Market). The only way would be in a referendum, and we certainly sure won’t get that any time soon, at least with a meaningful In/Out question.

To be honest, the writing was in their wall for all to see from the very beginning.
Nine if their behaviour is surprising because they’ve ALWAYS been intolerant and unhinged.

The reason there’s ‘no single way to vote for a party to say you want to leave Europe’ is that that would be completely insane to have a party running the country for five years on the basis of only one idea.

The correlation for UKIP and Tory supporters over oppostition to Europe is their xenophobia. This fuels every decision they make.

There are some key problems with the European Union but they are not because of ‘foreigners’

Well THAT won’t be anything to do with it being such a small place then would it…

If there’s an ‘absolutely huge’ difference between town and country perhaps it has something to do with actually getting to KNOW people who aren’t exactly the same as you…a tad difficult in a small village in the middle of nowhere populated only by relatives and close family friends…

UKIP has shot themselves in the foot and will only alienate any gay voters. Some US Republicans support gay marriage although it goes against the grain of mainstream Republican opinion so surely UKIP should expect some of it’s members to feel the same way without having to kick them out of party jobs. UKIP may oppose same-sex marriages but the BNP’s line on gays is far more extreme. It was only recently that their odious leader encouraged thugs to pay the B+B case couple a home visit.

Clear case of censorship that you suppress messages that point out errors in your own article.
THIS ARTICLE IS INACCURATE. For a start, Ollie Neville was never chairman of UKIP’s Young Independence branch. He was using that label in the interim while Young Independence has not formulated any electoral procedure that satisfies the party. So he wasn’t “dismissed”, he was just told not to use a label he is not entitled to.
Secondly, it was mainly his views of open borders that attracted criticism from other members. Ollie was telling newspapers he disagreed with basic party policies, and policies without which there cannot even be a sovereign state i.e. border control.
Inevitably the press have seized on the emotive same-sex marriage issue, which they do not understand. They just want to stir up hysteria. Ollie is entitled to his private views, but not to make public attacks on party leaders. In some cases he made personal attacks on other UKIP members which was improper and offensive.

Clear example of censorship., that you suppress comments that point out errors in the article.
THIS ARTICLE IS INACCURATE. For a start, Ollie Neville was never chairman of UKIP’s Young Independence branch. He was using that label in the interim while Young Independence has not formulated any electoral procedure that satisfies the party. So he wasn’t “dismissed”, he was just told not to use a label he is not entitled to.
Secondly, it was mainly his views of open borders that attracted criticism from other members. Ollie was telling newspapers he disagreed with basic party policies, and policies without which there cannot even be a sovereign state i.e. border control.
Inevitably the press have seized on the emotive same-sex marriage issue, which they do not understand. They just want to stir up hysteria. Ollie is entitled to his private views, but not to make public attacks on party leaders. In some cases he made personal attacks on other UKIP members which was improper and offensive.

Example of censorship: you suppress comments that point our errors in your articles.
THIS ARTICLE IS INACCURATE. Ollie Neville was never chairman of UKIP’s Young Independence branch. He was using that label in the interim while Young Independence has not formulated any electoral procedure that satisfies the party. So he wasn’t “dismissed”, he was just told not to use a label he is not entitled to.
Secondly, it was mainly his views of open borders that attracted criticism from other members. Ollie was telling newspapers he disagreed with basic party policies, and policies without which there cannot even be a sovereign state i.e. border control.
Inevitably the press have seized on the emotive same-sex marriage issue, which they do not understand. They just want to stir up hysteria. Ollie is entitled to his private views, but not to make public attacks on party leaders. In some cases he made personal attacks on other UKIP members which was improper and offensive.

There is no such thing as “homophobia”. That is just a word used by mad people to describe sane people.
Yes the readers of Pink News send hysterical messages harassing the inncent with abuse, foul language, scatological terms and death-threats. Such vicious behaviour does prove that they are mentally unstable and that does merit being sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

What, like, ‘mad’ in the sense of people who practically write their own threads and answer themselves, ‘Monica Shelley’? I still suspect you’re our old friend Jean; ‘she’ was balmy as a cracker, too, but great for a laugh. Anyway, keep it coming!

Ollie Neville claimed to have been elected but there was no election – he claimed to have got 62% of the vote. What vote? Only 117 people returned their voting forms out of a membership of 18,000!!!
He is absurd and irrelevant.

The view of average people in pub in Kent are just as important as the views of a warped, disturbed minority in Pink News – or perhaps I should say rather more important as they would be more representative of the normal majority.
Your contempt for the normal majority is the worst possible form of intolerance.

The “normal majority” of people back equality in marriage. The “normal majority” don’t back state warranted eugenics. The “normal majority” tend to think that UKIP is for bored tories and bnp members in blazers, Dr Gaspar.

And you consider yourself normal I suppose, closeted self loather and probably not even a female. The normal majority actually support equal marriage according to several reliable polls even one produced by Comres, so I suppose that would make you abnormal, dumb arse.

Whats a little different is that he also offered the views that beastiality and necrophilia were fine and dandy so before judging UKIP (who appear to me to be quite quite mad anyway) probably best to read around the subject a little first

18,000 membership and 117 young members voted in their non-election. The wishes of the majority were then overturned by how many?
It would seem that UKIP are truly the way forward for democracy in the UK.
Of course it had to happen that UKIP as a single issue party would need to find other issues to justify its existence once they realised its ‘raison d’etre’ was never going to happen.
Like any other fascist organization they have picked on any group of vulnerable people they perceive as easy targets to justify their warped and bigoted opinions.
They are however, absolute beginners at this game and are far outclassed by the Roman Catholic Church who have been doing this far longer and with more effect (in the past) for centuries.

UKIP have quite a robust manifesto if you bother to read it. And gay people are not vulnerable. They have clout that far exceeds their numbers and are quite vitriolic and insulting about anyone who dares voice a different world view. Get it straight – UKIP supports civil partnerships while their policy on gay marriage is remarkably similar to the labour, libdem and tory parties. And I can’t see how returning our sovereignty from Brussels, which was taken without our permission, is fascist.

He was removed because he expressed views which run counter to UKIP policy. UKIP policy is that the church should not be forced to perform same sex marriages – much the same as Labour, Tory and LibDems actually. The church is a belief based system not a secular authority and the bible is pretty clear on homosexuality. The freedom of religion is just as important as freedom of sexuality and to force the church to marry gay people is just as facist as attacking people because they are gay. Live and let live. Start a gay church and do it yourselves..

Actually, the bible is far from clear about homosexuality. No surprise when it was written thousands of years before the word even existed. Verses supposedly condemning same sex relationships are probably mistranslated. The whole thing is a mess.

PinkNews covers religion, politics, entertainment, finance, and community news for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in the UK and worldwide. Founded to produce broadsheet quality journalism for the LGBT community, we cover politics to theology in an intelligent manner.